Cardiology News

Consuming a large amount of nitrites from food additives versus none was associated with a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé study in France, researchers report.

JackF/iStock/Getty Images

However, a few experts who were not involved with this research question the strength of the findings because of study limitations.

The study involved more than 100,000 adults with a mean age of 43, and 79% were women.

Individuals with the highest intakes of nitrites from food additives (top third) had a 53% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 7 years compared with those with the lowest intake of this food additive after controlling for intake of sugars, red and processed meats, heme iron, salt, and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of nitrates from food additives was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest a direct association between additives-originated nitrites and [type 2 diabetes] risk and corroborate previously suggested associations between total dietary nitrites and [type 2 diabetes],” the researchers report in an article published online in PLoS Medicine.

However, “as this is the first large-scale study finding these associations, these results need to be replicated in other large-scale cohorts,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, PhD, head of the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN-CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and lead author Bernard Srour, PhD, PharmD, a scientist at the same institution, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Short-term intervention studies to determine insulin resistance could also be tested, they add.

In the meantime, “this study adds further evidence to the existing strong link between nitrites and colorectal cancer risk, and supports the importance of further regulation of nitrites as food additives and nitrogen fertilizers,” they say.

According to Dr. Touvier and Dr. Srour, the takeaway message for clinicians is the finding that nitrites from food additives are associated with type 2 diabetes, “support existing guidelines recommending [limiting] the consumption of processed meats to prevent chronic diseases. However, the consumption of vegetables should be encouraged as they contain several beneficial compounds and contribute to chronic disease prevention.”
 

Some experts are skeptical

But three experts who were not involved with the research were skeptical about the conclusions, in comments made to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“The fundamental weakness of this study is how the food additive intake was assessed,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London. “Estimates of intake were based on recalls of dietary intake on two separate occasions at the beginning of the study with no further estimates in the follow-up period of over 7 years,” he noted.

Other limitations include the relatively young age of the cohort and relatively low incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes (about 1% of the study population over 7 years).

Moreover, the level of nitrite food additive ingestion is much lower than the acceptable daily intake. The findings would need to be replicated with appropriate adjustment for differences in body weight.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, said that “the study does not support the claim in the press release and paper that food additives are responsible for the increased risk.”

He pointed out that “nitrite from additives contributes only about 4%-6% of total nitrite intake in the population, and it is not clear why this should have a stronger impact on risk than nitrite from other sources,” such as nitrate found in food and water.

Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said: “It could be questioned how accurate estimating intakes of individual additives like sodium nitrite, which was less than 1 mg per day from a record of just 2 days food intake per year, as it assumes people ate the same the other 363 days of the year.”

Moreover, “it is perhaps worth noting that the use of nitrites as an additive is often as sodium nitrite, which is used to cure meats like bacon, which if someone is seeking to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes would be something people would be encouraged to eat less of [anyway].”

“The best way to reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he said, “is to be physically active, maintain a healthy weight for you, and eat a varied diet based on vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds, and fruit along with wholegrain and moderate intakes of dairy foods and meat (especially processed meats).”
 

Study details

Nitrites and nitrates are used as food additives to prevent bacterial growth, mainly in processed meats, and they are also found in foods (mainly green leafy vegetables) and water (nitrates from the use of nitrogen fertilizer can enter the water supply).

The researchers analyzed data from 104,168 participants in NutriNet-Santé who had no diabetes at baseline and who completed 24-hour dietary intake records. They investigated the association between exposure to nitrites and nitrates (in food and water or in additives) and incident type 2 diabetes.

Most nitrites came from food (95.3%), and less often from food additives (4.7%) and water (< 0.01%). The nitrites in foods were mainly from vegetables (60%) and seasonings (23%).

Most nitrates also came from food (93%), followed by water (6.9%) and food additives (0.1%). The nitrates in foods were mainly from vegetables (41%), processed meat (19%), and meat (17%).

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 969 incident cases of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with individuals in the lowest third of nitrites from food and water, those in the highest tertile had a 27% higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for multiple variables (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .009).

The risk of type 2 diabetes associated with the highest intake of nitrites from additives was as previously described, 53% higher, than that for those with the lowest intake.

There was no evidence of an association between nitrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include potential errors in assessment of nitrate and nitrate exposure, potential selection bias (participants in the web-based study may have had healthier behaviors than the general population), and potential unaccounted confounders (because it was an observational study).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming a large amount of nitrites from food additives versus none was associated with a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé study in France, researchers report.

JackF/iStock/Getty Images

However, a few experts who were not involved with this research question the strength of the findings because of study limitations.

The study involved more than 100,000 adults with a mean age of 43, and 79% were women.

Individuals with the highest intakes of nitrites from food additives (top third) had a 53% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 7 years compared with those with the lowest intake of this food additive after controlling for intake of sugars, red and processed meats, heme iron, salt, and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of nitrates from food additives was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest a direct association between additives-originated nitrites and [type 2 diabetes] risk and corroborate previously suggested associations between total dietary nitrites and [type 2 diabetes],” the researchers report in an article published online in PLoS Medicine.

However, “as this is the first large-scale study finding these associations, these results need to be replicated in other large-scale cohorts,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, PhD, head of the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN-CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and lead author Bernard Srour, PhD, PharmD, a scientist at the same institution, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Short-term intervention studies to determine insulin resistance could also be tested, they add.

In the meantime, “this study adds further evidence to the existing strong link between nitrites and colorectal cancer risk, and supports the importance of further regulation of nitrites as food additives and nitrogen fertilizers,” they say.

According to Dr. Touvier and Dr. Srour, the takeaway message for clinicians is the finding that nitrites from food additives are associated with type 2 diabetes, “support existing guidelines recommending [limiting] the consumption of processed meats to prevent chronic diseases. However, the consumption of vegetables should be encouraged as they contain several beneficial compounds and contribute to chronic disease prevention.”
 

Some experts are skeptical

But three experts who were not involved with the research were skeptical about the conclusions, in comments made to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“The fundamental weakness of this study is how the food additive intake was assessed,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London. “Estimates of intake were based on recalls of dietary intake on two separate occasions at the beginning of the study with no further estimates in the follow-up period of over 7 years,” he noted.

Other limitations include the relatively young age of the cohort and relatively low incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes (about 1% of the study population over 7 years).

Moreover, the level of nitrite food additive ingestion is much lower than the acceptable daily intake. The findings would need to be replicated with appropriate adjustment for differences in body weight.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, said that “the study does not support the claim in the press release and paper that food additives are responsible for the increased risk.”

He pointed out that “nitrite from additives contributes only about 4%-6% of total nitrite intake in the population, and it is not clear why this should have a stronger impact on risk than nitrite from other sources,” such as nitrate found in food and water.

Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said: “It could be questioned how accurate estimating intakes of individual additives like sodium nitrite, which was less than 1 mg per day from a record of just 2 days food intake per year, as it assumes people ate the same the other 363 days of the year.”

Moreover, “it is perhaps worth noting that the use of nitrites as an additive is often as sodium nitrite, which is used to cure meats like bacon, which if someone is seeking to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes would be something people would be encouraged to eat less of [anyway].”

“The best way to reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he said, “is to be physically active, maintain a healthy weight for you, and eat a varied diet based on vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds, and fruit along with wholegrain and moderate intakes of dairy foods and meat (especially processed meats).”
 

Study details

Nitrites and nitrates are used as food additives to prevent bacterial growth, mainly in processed meats, and they are also found in foods (mainly green leafy vegetables) and water (nitrates from the use of nitrogen fertilizer can enter the water supply).

The researchers analyzed data from 104,168 participants in NutriNet-Santé who had no diabetes at baseline and who completed 24-hour dietary intake records. They investigated the association between exposure to nitrites and nitrates (in food and water or in additives) and incident type 2 diabetes.

Most nitrites came from food (95.3%), and less often from food additives (4.7%) and water (< 0.01%). The nitrites in foods were mainly from vegetables (60%) and seasonings (23%).

Most nitrates also came from food (93%), followed by water (6.9%) and food additives (0.1%). The nitrates in foods were mainly from vegetables (41%), processed meat (19%), and meat (17%).

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 969 incident cases of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with individuals in the lowest third of nitrites from food and water, those in the highest tertile had a 27% higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for multiple variables (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .009).

The risk of type 2 diabetes associated with the highest intake of nitrites from additives was as previously described, 53% higher, than that for those with the lowest intake.

There was no evidence of an association between nitrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include potential errors in assessment of nitrate and nitrate exposure, potential selection bias (participants in the web-based study may have had healthier behaviors than the general population), and potential unaccounted confounders (because it was an observational study).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consuming a large amount of nitrites from food additives versus none was associated with a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé study in France, researchers report.

JackF/iStock/Getty Images

However, a few experts who were not involved with this research question the strength of the findings because of study limitations.

The study involved more than 100,000 adults with a mean age of 43, and 79% were women.

Individuals with the highest intakes of nitrites from food additives (top third) had a 53% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes during a median follow-up of 7 years compared with those with the lowest intake of this food additive after controlling for intake of sugars, red and processed meats, heme iron, salt, and saturated fatty acids. Consumption of nitrates from food additives was not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes.

“Our findings suggest a direct association between additives-originated nitrites and [type 2 diabetes] risk and corroborate previously suggested associations between total dietary nitrites and [type 2 diabetes],” the researchers report in an article published online in PLoS Medicine.

However, “as this is the first large-scale study finding these associations, these results need to be replicated in other large-scale cohorts,” senior author Mathilde Touvier, PhD, head of the Nutritional Epidemiology Research Team (EREN-CRESS), INSERM, INRAE, Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and lead author Bernard Srour, PhD, PharmD, a scientist at the same institution, said in a joint email to this news organization.

Short-term intervention studies to determine insulin resistance could also be tested, they add.

In the meantime, “this study adds further evidence to the existing strong link between nitrites and colorectal cancer risk, and supports the importance of further regulation of nitrites as food additives and nitrogen fertilizers,” they say.

According to Dr. Touvier and Dr. Srour, the takeaway message for clinicians is the finding that nitrites from food additives are associated with type 2 diabetes, “support existing guidelines recommending [limiting] the consumption of processed meats to prevent chronic diseases. However, the consumption of vegetables should be encouraged as they contain several beneficial compounds and contribute to chronic disease prevention.”
 

Some experts are skeptical

But three experts who were not involved with the research were skeptical about the conclusions, in comments made to the U.K. Science Media Centre.

“The fundamental weakness of this study is how the food additive intake was assessed,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London. “Estimates of intake were based on recalls of dietary intake on two separate occasions at the beginning of the study with no further estimates in the follow-up period of over 7 years,” he noted.

Other limitations include the relatively young age of the cohort and relatively low incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes (about 1% of the study population over 7 years).

Moreover, the level of nitrite food additive ingestion is much lower than the acceptable daily intake. The findings would need to be replicated with appropriate adjustment for differences in body weight.

Gunter Kuhnle, PhD, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, England, said that “the study does not support the claim in the press release and paper that food additives are responsible for the increased risk.”

He pointed out that “nitrite from additives contributes only about 4%-6% of total nitrite intake in the population, and it is not clear why this should have a stronger impact on risk than nitrite from other sources,” such as nitrate found in food and water.

Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior lecturer, Aston University, Birmingham, England, said: “It could be questioned how accurate estimating intakes of individual additives like sodium nitrite, which was less than 1 mg per day from a record of just 2 days food intake per year, as it assumes people ate the same the other 363 days of the year.”

Moreover, “it is perhaps worth noting that the use of nitrites as an additive is often as sodium nitrite, which is used to cure meats like bacon, which if someone is seeking to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes would be something people would be encouraged to eat less of [anyway].”

“The best way to reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes,” he said, “is to be physically active, maintain a healthy weight for you, and eat a varied diet based on vegetables, pulses, nuts, seeds, and fruit along with wholegrain and moderate intakes of dairy foods and meat (especially processed meats).”
 

Study details

Nitrites and nitrates are used as food additives to prevent bacterial growth, mainly in processed meats, and they are also found in foods (mainly green leafy vegetables) and water (nitrates from the use of nitrogen fertilizer can enter the water supply).

The researchers analyzed data from 104,168 participants in NutriNet-Santé who had no diabetes at baseline and who completed 24-hour dietary intake records. They investigated the association between exposure to nitrites and nitrates (in food and water or in additives) and incident type 2 diabetes.

Most nitrites came from food (95.3%), and less often from food additives (4.7%) and water (< 0.01%). The nitrites in foods were mainly from vegetables (60%) and seasonings (23%).

Most nitrates also came from food (93%), followed by water (6.9%) and food additives (0.1%). The nitrates in foods were mainly from vegetables (41%), processed meat (19%), and meat (17%).

During a median follow-up of 7.3 years, there were 969 incident cases of type 2 diabetes.

Compared with individuals in the lowest third of nitrites from food and water, those in the highest tertile had a 27% higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes, after adjusting for multiple variables (hazard ratio, 1.27; P = .009).

The risk of type 2 diabetes associated with the highest intake of nitrites from additives was as previously described, 53% higher, than that for those with the lowest intake.

There was no evidence of an association between nitrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.

The researchers acknowledge that study limitations include potential errors in assessment of nitrate and nitrate exposure, potential selection bias (participants in the web-based study may have had healthier behaviors than the general population), and potential unaccounted confounders (because it was an observational study).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.

My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.

Kind Regards, 

Pat

I sat down, my desk nearly at eye level now, and felt the paper in my hand. It was white, college ruled paper and a blue ink pen. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had. 

Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.

My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.

Kind Regards, 

Pat

I sat down, my desk nearly at eye level now, and felt the paper in my hand. It was white, college ruled paper and a blue ink pen. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had. 

Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

My desk looks nothing like my grandfather’s. It stands about mid-abdomen high and has a small surface, perhaps just enough for the monitor and a mug. Yes, I can move it up and down (thank you 21st century), but it has no drawers. It is lean and immaculate, but it has no soul.

My grandfather sat at a large oak desk with three drawers on each side. Each was so heavy you had to be at least 6 years old to pull one open for exploring the contents inside. The desk surface was vast and although immobile, it had a greenish leather blotter for writing. Alongside his pile of correspondences was a treasure for those of us tall enough to get it: A heavy brass letter opener. It came, I believe, with a secretary who would open his letters and stack them neatly before placing this sometimes-pirate’s-sword far enough away from the edge for us to not reach it.

Kind Regards, 

Pat

I sat down, my desk nearly at eye level now, and felt the paper in my hand. It was white, college ruled paper and a blue ink pen. She carefully looped her “y’s” and crossed her “t’s.” Not one cross out. She thought about each sentence before transcribing it. The paper once sat on her desk, touched her fingers and the envelope sealed with her saliva. It was not filled with trifling requests or complaints. It was not efficient, but it was more than just communication. She took the time to choose the words to capture her emotion and express her gratitude. It was respectful, dignified, decidedly nondigital. For a brief moment I thought I might write back, but quickly realized that was impractical. I knew I wouldn’t make the time to do so. I wish I had. 

Having no drawers to save it, I held it up with just a corner of the page resting on my desk and scribbled in black ink “Reviewed. Please scan to media file. 12/8/22. JAB”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

Guilt reduction, now in deceptive and open-secret forms

Guilt plagues a lot of us, sometimes regularly. Maybe you felt bad about eating the leftovers that your partner was looking forward to eating at the end of the day. Or for not saving a seat for your friend who was running late to the movies. Maybe even hiding a secret that you know would hurt a person’s feelings. We’ve all felt it, and it doesn’t feel good.

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

But what if there was a pill that would make those feelings seem to hurt less? There’s already a pill for almost everything, right?

Well, researchers from the University of Basel are on the case and have conducted a study suggesting that a placebo might work. They asked participants to write down a time they felt super guilty about something, just to stir up those feelings again, then they were divided into three groups. One group was told they would receive real medication that was actually a placebo, one was told they would get a placebo, and one got nothing. The subjects’ guilty feelings were reduced in both the medication-that-was-really-a-placebo group and placebo-that-was-a-placebo group.

“Our study therefore supports the intriguing finding that placebos work even when they are administered openly, and that explanation of the treatment is key to its effectiveness,” lead author Dilan Sezer said in a written statement.

More research is needed, but the human mind is a very interesting place. It seems like we can convince ourselves of just about anything. Especially to feel less guilty.
 

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad scientist’s world

Mad scientists. Life’s just more interesting with a few of them running around, but they’re mostly relegated to works of fiction. Real life is boring; we don’t actually have neurosurgeons going around claiming human brain transplant is technically feasible.

Oh, wait a minute.

Best of all, this isn’t even Dr. Sergio Canavero’s first rodeo with mad science: In 2015 he claimed human head transplants were technically feasible, and in the past few years has claimed to have rehearsed head transplants on cadavers and successfully repaired spinal cord injuries in animals. Lots of claims in there, but precious little evidence. And contrary to what everyone at the head enhancement clinic says, people will notice if you start going around with a new head.

But let’s get back to brains. Ignoring the fact that brain transplant sounds like a zombie with a PhD nibbling on your skull, the article does appear in a peer-reviewed journal. So surely there’s some level of legitimacy. After all, it’s not like Dr. Canavero is an editor for this journal. [Editor’s note: By that we mean he is an editor for the journal.]

Man, he’s taking all the fun out of this.

Anyway, now that we’ve prefaced this with the mother of all caveats, what exactly is Dr. Canavero proposing with his brain transplant? It’s pretty simple: Just have a robot scoop out the first brain and place it into a fresh body, either a donated but moribund younger body or a cloned body. Reconnect all the nerves and vasculature and you’re good to go. Enjoy your wine and laugh in the face of death.

Naturally, such a … bold proposal is lacking in the details, but who cares about details, anyway? This is mad science, not respectable science. Professionals have standards. And if we hear that a human brain transplant was successfully completed on a non–dark and stormy night and the doctor didn’t cackle madly “It’s alive! It’s alive!” then honestly, what even was the point?

Ambivalence rules!

As the office’s unofficial Sith lord/Star Wars nerd, LOTME takes notice when science extols the benefits of unhappiness: “It’s good to be grumpy: Bad moods make us more detail-oriented, study shows.”

Ryan Franco/Unsplash

The investigators manipulated the emotions of participants by having them watch a clip from “Sophie’s Choice” or one from “Friends.” Then the subjects listened to short, emotionally neutral stories, some of which contained inconsistencies, with the text displayed on a computer screen. Sorry to say, gang at Central Perk, but round one went to the sad movie.

“When people are in a negative mood, they are more careful and analytical. They scrutinize what’s actually stated in a text, and they don’t just fall back on their default world knowledge,” lead author Vicky Lai, PhD, of the University of Arizona said in a statement from the school.

Negative mood. Careful and analytical. Grumpy is good.

You’ve fallen into Darth Science’s little trap, and we have you now.

A study conducted at the University of Geneva offers a slightly different conclusion. And by slightly different, we mean completely different. People over age 65 who watched a series of short TV clips depicting people in a state of emotional suffering experienced excessive modification of their neuronal connections, compared with those who watched emotionally neutral videos.

The brains of these subjects remained “frozen in a negative state by relating the suffering of others to their own emotional memories,” lead author Sebastian Baez Lugo said in a written release from the university.

Emotional suffering. Frozen brains. Grumpy is … not good?

So there you have it. Darth Science’s lesson for the day: A negative mood makes you careful and analytical, but negative thoughts are bad for your brain.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

A common sentiment shared by patients who are happy with their health care professionals is, “I feel heard and understood.” How do we become those professionals and make sure that we are doing a good job connecting and communicating with our patients?

Here are a few suggestions on how to do this.
 

Practice intent listening

When a patient shares their symptoms with you, show genuine curiosity and concern. Ask clarifying questions. Ask how the symptom or problem is affecting their day-to-day life. Avoid quick, rapid-fire questions back at the patient. Do not accept a patient self-diagnosis.

When a patient with a first-time headache says they are having a migraine headache, for example, ask many clarifying questions to make sure you can make a diagnosis of headache type, then use all the information you have gathered to educate the patient on what you believe they have.

It is easy to jump to treatment, but we always want to make sure we have the diagnosis correct first. By intently listening, it also makes it much easier to tell a patient you do not know what is causing their symptoms, but that you and the patient will be vigilant for any future clues that may lead to a diagnosis.
 

Use terminology that patients understand

Rachael Gotlieb, MD, and colleagues published an excellent study with eye-opening results on common phrases we use as health care providers and how often patients do not understand them.

Only 9% of patients understood what was meant when they were asked if they have been febrile. Only 2% understood what was meant by “I am concerned the patient has an occult infection.” Only 21% understood that “your xray findings were quite impressive” was bad news.

It is easy to avoid these medical language traps, we just have to check our doctor speak. Ask, “Do you have a fever?” Say, “I am concerned you may have an infection that is hard to find.”

Several other terms we use all the time in explaining things to patients that I have found most patients do not understand are the terms bilateral, systemic, and significant. Think carefully as you explain things to patients and check back to have them repeat to you what they think you said.
 

Be comfortable saying you don’t know

Many symptoms in medicine end up not being diagnosable. When a patient shares symptoms that do not fit a pattern of a disease, it is important to share with them why you think it is okay to wait and watch, even if you do not have a diagnosis.

Patients find it comforting that you are so honest with them. Doing this also has the benefit of gaining patients’ trust when you are sure about something, because it tells them you don’t have an answer for everything.
 

Ask your patients what they think is causing their symptoms

This way, you know what their big fear is. You can address what they are worried about, even if it isn’t something you are considering.

Patients are often fearful of a disease a close friend or relative has, so when they get new symptoms, they fear diseases that we might not think of. By knowing what they are fearful of, you can reassure when appropriate.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.

He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.

University of Miami

“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.

In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.” 
 

Dedicated to improving stroke care

Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.

Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.

As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.

Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”

During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement. 

Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.

Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.

In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.

He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.

University of Miami

“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.

In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.” 
 

Dedicated to improving stroke care

Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.

Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.

As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.

Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”

During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement. 

Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.

Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.

In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Ralph L. Sacco, MD, the first neurologist to serve as president of the American Heart Association and the only physician to serve as president of both the AHA and the American Academy of Neurology, died Jan. 17 at the age of 65.

He died of a brain tumor at his home in Amagansett, N.Y., according to an obituary published in Neurology, Circulation, and Stroke.

University of Miami

“Ralph was one of a kind,” Nancy Brown, chief executive officer for the AHA and American Stroke Association, said in a statement. “His leadership was unparalleled, and his warm, generous heart and care transcended his research and clinic to every person fortunate to meet him and likely become a friend,” Ms. Brown said.

In a tweet, Natalia S. Rost, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, called him, “a dear friend, an inspiring colleague, a generous mentor, an astute scientist, a consummate advocate for brain health worldwide.” 
 

Dedicated to improving stroke care

Dr. Sacco was chair of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in the department of neurology; the Olemberg Family Chair in Neurological Disorders; professor of neurology, public health sciences, human genetics, and neurosurgery; executive director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute; director and multi-principal investigator of the Miami Clinical and Translational Science Institute; and senior associate dean for clinical and translational science.

Dr. Sacco was a population-based researcher in the field of cerebrovascular diseases.

As founder of the Northern Manhattan Study, he paved the way for examining the differences in stroke risk related to race, ethnicity, sex, and neighborhood, and realizing the impact of modifiable lifestyle behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and physical activity, on stroke risk.

Dr. Sacco’s work led to more targeted stroke prevention programs and his “drive and dedication fueled changes that improved stroke research and fostered the development of targeted stroke care delivery, ultimately improving stroke recovery and post-stroke quality of life for many,” the AHA statement said.

Dr. Sacco was also founder and executive director of the Florida Stroke Registry, which consists of 167 Florida stroke centers. He was a member of the National Academy of Medicine.

In an obituary written by Orly Avitzur, MD, current president of the AAN, she notes that he “was the only physician to have become both the president of the AHA (2010-2011) and the AAN (2017-2019), positions that reflected the respect and admiration of professional colleagues earned over the years.”

During his tenure as AAN president, Dr. Sacco led an initiative to ensure that academic neurology, from department chairs to professors to students, knew about the abundance of academy resources available to them, the AAN noted in a statement. 

Dr. Sacco was a “strong proponent of enlarging the neurology workforce through the academic pipeline and promoted the concept of the ‘newrologist’ to get people excited in careers in neurology, moving beyond just diagnosis and treatments to include interventions, preventative care, and the future of regenerative care,” the AAN said.

Dr. Sacco received numerous awards throughout his career, most recently the AHA 2022 Distinguished Scientist award. He also received the 2015 Gold Heart Award, the 2011 Distinguished National Leadership Award, and the 2006 William Feinberg Award.

In addition to his husband, Scott Dutcher, Dr. Sacco is survived by his father, Anthony P. Sacco, and his father’s wife, Rosemary; and his four siblings and their families, along with many nieces and nephews.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.

“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”

Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.

Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”

Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

More ready, more confident

The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.

The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.

Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.

The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.

For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.

They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.

The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.

At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).

After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).

Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.

Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.

After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).

Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.

“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
 

Real-world outcomes required

Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.

“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”

In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”

Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”

Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”

Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.

“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”

Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.

“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”

Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.

Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”

Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

More ready, more confident

The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.

The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.

Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.

The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.

For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.

They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.

The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.

At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).

After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).

Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.

Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.

After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).

Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.

“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
 

Real-world outcomes required

Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.

“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”

In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”

Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”

Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”

Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.

“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”

Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.

“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”

Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.

Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”

Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

More ready, more confident

The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.

The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.

Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.

The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.

For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.

They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.

The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.

At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).

After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).

Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.

Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.

After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).

Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.

“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
 

Real-world outcomes required

Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.

“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”

In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”

Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”

Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”

Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.

“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”

Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Patients who received an injection of inclisiran (Leqvio), a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent, every 6 months for as long as 4 years safely maintained about a 45% reduction from baseline in their level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in an open-label extension study with 382 patients.

In addition to providing the longest reported treatment experience with inclisiran, which received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval a little over a year ago, the results also suggest with the most definitive evidence to date that inclisiran is less effective for lowering LDL-C, compared with a class of medications that reduce LDL-C by a related but distinct mechanism: antibodies that directly inhibit activity of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, a drug class that includes alirocumab (Praluent) and evolocumab (Repatha). Inclisiran cuts PCSK9 activity by blocking this enzyme’s gene transcription in liver cells thereby interfering with PCSK9 production.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Results from this study, the ORION-3 trial, provide “the first prospective long-term evaluation of the durability and safety of an siRNA-based therapy to provide clinically meaningful reductions in LDL cholesterol with a convenient dosing schedule,” wrote Kausik K. Ray, MD, and coauthors in a report in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The findings “provide assurance that siRNA-based therapies are safe and have the potential to provide a convenient approach to managing” LDL-C, wrote Dr. Ray, a cardiologist and professor of public health at Imperial College London, and his associates.
 

Evolocumab surpasses inclisiran in crossover cohort

The new data from ORION-3 study included findings from 92 patients first treated with evolocumab injections every 2 weeks for a year, an intervention that lowered their LDL-C levels by an average of about 60%, compared with their pretreatment level. ORION-3’s study design then crossed these patients to treatment with injections of inclisiran twice a year during 3 further years of follow-up, during which their average LDL levels reset to a roughly 45% drop from baseline, a potentially clinically meaningful difference, commented Robert S. Rosenson, MD, a lipid management specialist who was not involved in the ORION-3 study.

“This is the first evidence that compared the two classes” within a single study, thereby avoiding a problematic cross-study comparison. “That’s why the data are important. They underscore that the monoclonal antibodies are more effective for lowering LDL-C,” compared with inclisiran, said Dr. Rosenson, professor and director of cardiometabolic disorders at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.

The findings “confirm in a trial that the PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are indeed more potent,” he said in an interview.

But Dr. Rosenson acknowledged that, while this analysis used data on patients treated with evolocumab and then switched to inclisiran collected prospectively in a single study, it has the limitation of involving a comparison that was not prespecified. The primary goal of the evolocumab-to-inclisiran switch included in ORION-3 was to assess the ease, safety, and efficacy of a switch to inclisiran from treatment with a PCSK9 antibody and was not intended to compare the two drug classes. 

The roughly 15% absolute difference in LDL-C lowering between the two tested drug classes can have substantial clinical implications for patients who start treatment with highly elevated levels of LDL-C, more than 190 mg/dL, because they have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, are unable to take a statin because of intolerance, or both. The difference in LDL-C reduction with an antibody or with inclisiran could mean the difference between whether or not a patient like this achieves their LDL-C goal level, Dr. Rosenson explained.

Inclisiran’s upside

On the other hand, inclisiran has a couple of important advantages. First, its mechanism of action means that effective treatment involves one injection every 6 months following a patient’s first two injections at onset and after 90 days, with all injections administered in a clinician’s office. In contrast, both of the monoclonal antibodies require injections every other week, a schedule that depends on patient self-injections using prefilled syringes obtained from a pharmacy.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Twice-a-year dosing by a clinician can be a major attraction because it helps ensure treatment compliance, aids patients with physical or psychological limitations to self-injection, reduces the pill burden for patients who require multiple medications, and facilitates frequent travelers who would otherwise need to carry syringes with them on trips, Dr. Rosenson noted.

The second big advantage of office-based administration of inclisiran for U.S. Medicare patients is that the treatment is billed under a patient’s part B coverage, usually resulting in easier coverage and a significantly lower patient co-pay, compared with Medicare’s coverage for a pharmacy-dispensed agent, which is covered under Medicare part D. “Part B coverage is financially more doable” for most Medicare patients, said Dr. Rosenson.

The administration schedule for inclisiran as well as its superior Medicare coverage makes the agent “transformative” for LDL-C lowering in patients for whom treatment delivery, frequency, and payment are issues, he said.
 

Inclisiran uptake modest after FDA approval

Despite these pluses, uptake of inclisiran has been modest since it received U.S. marketing approval in December 2021. In its most recent quarterly financial filing, in October 2022, Novartis reported total worldwide income from inclisiran (Leqvio) of $70 million during the first 9 months of 2022, although a Novartis spokesperson noted that the company has seen “positive trends in uptake” over the course of 2022. Inclisiran is labeled as an “adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering” of LDL-C.

During 2022, inclisiran uptake lagged because of the usual problems that slow the introduction of new drugs and new drug classes, especially ones that require dosing by a clinician. Months were spent waiting for billing codes to roll out, for clinical staffs to incorporate inclisiran injections into their routines, and for commercial insurers to get up to speed on their coverage, Dr. Rosenson said.

Also, a key step for widespread uptake of a new medication for improving cardiovascular disease outcomes – results from phase 3 studies that document safety and efficacy for these outcomes – remains several years off. The ORION-4 trial and the VICTORION-2P trial, each assessing the impact of inclisiran on cardiovascular disease events in roughly 15,000 people, will need about another 3-4 years before their results become available.

Professional medical societies that issue cardiovascular-disease management guidelines “prefer agents with proven benefits in phase 3 trials,” Dr. Rosenson noted.

Hence, the most recent update to U.S. LDL-C–management guidelines, released in the second half of 2022 by the American College of Cardiology as an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, said this about the current role for inclisiran: “At the present time, a PCSK9 monoclonal antibody is preferred as the initial PCSK9 inhibitor of choice in view of its demonstrated safety, efficacy, and benefits for cardiovascular outcomes in the FOURIER [for evolocumab] and ODYSSEY Outcomes [for alirocumab] trials. The ORION-4 and VICTORION-2P cardiovascular outcomes trials with inclisiran are currently underway, and their completion is anticipated in 2026 and 2027, respectively. In view of the twice-yearly dosing regimen, inclisiran may be considered in patients with demonstrated poor adherence to PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with adverse effects from both PSCK9 monoclonal antibodies or those who may be unable to self-inject may also be considered for therapy with inclisiran.”
 

ORION-3 extended the ORION-1 trial

The ORION-1 study was a phase 2 placebo-controlled, dose-ranging safety and efficacy assessment of inclisiran that gave patients two injections of the drug, at day zero and 90 days, and followed them for an additional 120 days (210 days total follow-up duration), and in some cases for as long as 360 days total. Of the 370 patients who received inclisiran in ORION-1, 290 agreed to continue inclisiran in the open-label extension, ORION-3. ORION-1 also included 127 patients randomized to initial placebo treatment, and 92 of these patients agreed to continue in ORION-3 and became the patients initially treated with evolocumab injections every other week for 1 year followed by initiation of an inclisiran regimen.

The primary outcome of ORION-3 was the change in LDL-C from baseline (the ORION-1 baseline) after 210 days of receiving inclisiran in ORION-3 (or a total of roughly 570 days after the start of ORION-1). The primary endpoint showed that, at day 210 of ORION-3 the average reduction in LDL-C from the original baseline level was 47.5%.

But a “more important” outcome, said Dr. Ray when he first reported the ORION-3 results during the American Heart Association scientific sessions in Chicago in November 2022, was that, overall, during 4 years on inclisiran this cohort showed an average cut in LDL-C from baseline of about 45% that consistently remained at this level throughout the 4 years of treatment.

“This provides us with an idea of what happens with chronic inclisiran dosing,” Dr. Ray explained. “There was no loss of biological efficacy, and we achieved these clinically meaningful, time-averaged reductions with a good safety profile. The great thing is that when patients get their injections [every 6 months] you see a consistent LDL-C reduction. A twice-annual injection is an opportunity to redesign” the way patients receive preventive cardiology care and treatment to lower LDL-C, Dr Ray said.

ORION-1 was sponsored by The Medicines Company. ORION-3 was sponsored by Novartis (which acquired The Medicines Company). Dr. Ray has received consulting fees, personal fees, and research grants from Novartis, as well as consulting fees and research grants from Amgen, the company that markets evolocumab (Repatha), and research grants from Regeneron, the company that markets alirocumab (Praluent). He has also received consulting fee, personal fees, and research grants from numerous other companies. Dr. Rosenson has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Amgen, Novartis, and Regeneron, and he has received speaking fees from Amgen and Regeneron, and has ties to several other pharmaceutical companies.
 

This article was updated on 1/26/2023.

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 25% of hospital admissions included at least one adverse event, as indicated from data from 2,809 admissions at 11 hospitals.

The 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which focused on medical injury and litigation, documented an adverse event rate of 3.7 events per 100 admissions; 28% of those events were attributed to negligence, write David W. Bates, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

Although patient safety has changed significantly since 1991, documenting improvements has been challenging, the researchers say. Several reports have shown a decrease in health care–associated infections. However, other aspects of safety – notably, adverse drug events, defined as injuries resulting from drugs taken – are not easily measured and tracked, the researchers say.

“We have not had good estimates of how much harm is being caused by care in hospitals in an ongoing way that looked across all types of adverse events,” and the current review is therefore important, Dr. Bates said in an interview.

In a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers analyzed a random sample of 2,809 hospital admissions from 11 hospitals in Massachusetts during the 2018 calendar year. The hospitals ranged in size from fewer than 100 beds to more than 700 beds; all patients were aged 18 years and older. A panel of nine nurses reviewed the admissions records to identify potential adverse events, and eight physicians reviewed the adverse event summaries and either agreed or disagreed with the adverse event type. The severity of each event was ranked using a general severity scale into categories of significant, serious, life-threatening, or fatal.

Overall, at least one adverse event was identified in 23.6% of the hospital admissions. A total of 978 adverse events were deemed to have occurred during the index admission, and 222 of these (22.7%) were deemed preventable. Among the preventable adverse events, 19.7% were classified as serious, 3.3% as life-threatening, and 0.5% as fatal.

A total of 523 admissions (18.6%) involved at least one significant adverse event, defined as an event that caused unnecessary harm but from which recovery was rapid. A total of 211 admissions involved a serious adverse event, defined as harm resulting in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery; 34 included at least one life-threatening event; and seven admissions involved a fatal adverse event.

A total of 191 admissions involved at least one adverse event deemed preventable. Of those, 29 involved at least one preventable adverse event that was serious, life-threatening, or fatal, the researchers write. Of the seven deaths in the study population, one was deemed preventable.

The most common adverse events were adverse drug events, which accounted for 39.0% of the adverse events; surgical or other procedural events accounted for 30.4%; patient care events (including falls and pressure ulcers) accounted for 15.0%; and health care–associated infections accounted for 11.9%.
 

Overcoming barriers to better safety

“The overall level of harm, with nearly 1 in 4 patients suffering an adverse event, was higher than I expected it might be,” Dr. Bates told this news organization. However, techniques for identifying adverse events have improved, and “it is easier to find them in electronic records than in paper records,” he noted.

“Hospitals have many issues they are currently dealing with since COVID, and one issue is simply prioritization,” Dr. Bates said. “But it is now possible to measure harm for all patients using electronic tools, and if hospitals know how much harm they are having in specific areas, they can make choices about which ones to focus on.”

“We now have effective prevention strategies for most of the main kinds of harm,” he said. Generally, rates of harm are high because these strategies are not being used effectively, he said. “In addition, there are new tools that can be used – for example, to identify patients who are decompensating earlier,” he noted.

As for additional research, some specific types of harm that have been resistant to interventions, such as pressure ulcers, deserve more attention, said Dr. Bates. “In addition, diagnostic errors appear to cause a great deal of harm, but we don’t yet have good strategies for preventing these,” he said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from hospitals that might not represent hospitals at large and by the inclusion mainly of patients with private insurance, the researchers write. Other limitations include the likelihood that some adverse events were missed and the level of agreement on adverse events between adjudicators was only fair.

However, the findings serve as a reminder to health care professionals of the need for continued attention to improving patient safety, and measuring adverse events remains a critical part of guiding these improvements, the researchers conclude.
 

Timely reassessment and opportunities to improve

In the decades since the publication of the report, “To Err Is Human,” by the National Academies in 2000, significant attention has been paid to improving patient safety during hospitalizations, and health care systems have increased in both system and disease complexity, Said Suman Pal, MBBS, a specialist in hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “Therefore, this study is important in reassessing the safety of inpatient care at the current time,” he said.

“The findings of this study showing preventable adverse events in approximately 7% of all admissions; while concerning, is not surprising, as it is consistent with other studies over time, as the authors have also noted in their discussion,” said Dr. Pal. The current findings “underscore the importance of continuous quality improvement efforts to increase the safety of patient care for hospitalized patients,” he noted.

“The increasing complexity of medical care, fragmentation of health care, structural inequities of health systems, and more recent widespread public health challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic have been, in my opinion, barriers to improving patient safety,” Dr. Pal said. “The use of innovation and an interdisciplinary approach to patient safety and quality improvement in hospital-based care, such as the use of machine learning to monitor trends and predict the individualized risk of harm, could be a potential way out” to help reduce barriers and improve safety, he said.

“Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of preventable harm for hospitalized patients in the United States,” said Dr. Pal. “When planning for change, keen attention must be paid to understanding how these [drivers] may differ for patients who have been historically marginalized or are otherwise underserved so as to not exacerbate health care inequities,” he added.

The study was funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions. Dr. Bates owns stock options with AESOP, Clew, FeelBetter, Guided Clinical Solutions, MDClone, and ValeraHealth and has grants/contracts from IBM Watson and EarlySense. He has also served as a consultant for CDI Negev. Dr. Pal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A vaccine database found a possible link between the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and ischemic strokes in people over 65 who got the shot, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration said in a joint news release.

The release did not recommend people change their vaccine practices, saying the database finding probably did not represent a “true clinical risk.” The CDC said everybody, including people over 65, should stay up to date on their COVID vaccines, including the bivalent booster.

The news release said the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), “a near real-time surveillance system,” raised a safety concern about the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.

“Rapid-response investigation of the signal in the VSD raised a question of whether people 65 and older who have received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent were more likely to have an ischemic stroke in the 21 days following vaccination compared with days 22-44 following vaccination,” the news release said.

Ischemic strokes are blockages of blood to the brain, often caused by blood clots.

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the release said.

No higher likelihood of strokes linked to the Pfizer bivalent vaccine had been found by Pfizer/BioNTech, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System maintained by the CDC and the FDA, or other agencies that monitor reactions of vaccines, the news release said. No safety issues about strokes have been identified with the Moderna bivalent vaccine. 

CNN, citing a CDC official, reported that about 550,000 seniors who got Pfizer bivalent boosters were tracked by the VSD, and 130 of them had strokes within 3 weeks of getting the shot. None of those 130 people died, CNN said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share the data. 

The issue will be discussed at the January meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

In a joint statement, Pfizer and BioNTech said: “Neither Pfizer and BioNTech nor the CDC or FDA have observed similar findings across numerous other monitoring systems in the U.S. and globally and there is no evidence to conclude that ischemic stroke is associated with the use of the companies’ COVID-19 vaccines.”

Bivalent boosters contain two strains of vaccine – one to protect against the original COVID-19 virus and another targeting Omicron subvariants.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

PARIS – How can the problem of poor treatment compliance in patients with hypertension be resolved? A new therapeutic approach could be a game-changer.

Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.

It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.

These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.

The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.

This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
 

Lasting efficacy

Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.

“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.

Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).

Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.

“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
 

Unanswered questions

The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.

In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.

However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.

A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.

Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.

In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
 

On the horizon

Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – How can the problem of poor treatment compliance in patients with hypertension be resolved? A new therapeutic approach could be a game-changer.

Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.

It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.

These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.

The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.

This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
 

Lasting efficacy

Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.

“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.

Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).

Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.

“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
 

Unanswered questions

The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.

In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.

However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.

A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.

Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.

In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
 

On the horizon

Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – How can the problem of poor treatment compliance in patients with hypertension be resolved? A new therapeutic approach could be a game-changer.

Many approaches have been explored in recent years to make life easier for patients living with chronic conditions that require them to take daily medication: subcutaneous implantable devices, nanogels, and, more specifically in the case of hypertension, renal denervation or small interfering RNA (siRNA) with a long half-life.

It’s siRNA that Michel Azizi, MD, PhD, head of the blood pressure clinic at Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP) in Paris, discussed at the International Meeting of the French Society of Hypertension.

These small molecules have already shown their worth in treating rare diseases such as transthyretin amyloidosis. More recently, treating hypercholesterolemia with the PCSK9 inhibitor inclisiran has proven effective. “One subcutaneous injection of inclisiran reduces LDL cholesterol by 50% for a period of 210 days,” said Dr. Azizi.

The benefit of a new therapeutic siRNA – zilebesiran, administered subcutaneously – in treating hypertension is currently the subject of a phase II clinical trial.

This is a double-stranded RNA. One of the strands is linked to a sugar, N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc), which protects these highly fragile siRNA and binds with a very strong affinity in the liver. The second strand binds to a specific area of the RNA to prevent synthesis of the precursor peptide of angiotensin, angiotensinogen. The resulting effect is suppression of the production of angiotensin I and II, which leads to a long-lasting lowering of blood pressure.
 

Lasting efficacy

Phase I studies with zilebesiran have demonstrated a long-term effect, with a reduction of greater than 90% in circulating angiotensinogen over 6 months after a single subcutaneous dose (800 mg). The peak in reduction of circulating angiotensinogen occurs after approximately 3 weeks.

“It’s extremely powerful,” said Dr. Azizi.

Lasting reductions in blood pressure have also been observed, with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showing a reduction in systolic BP of greater than 15 mm Hg 8 weeks after administration of a single dose of zilebesiran (800 mg).

Zilebesiran was also well tolerated, with only mild to moderate reactions at the site of the injection (n = 5/56) and no serious treatment-related adverse events, hypotension, or significant changes in kidney or liver function.

“In terms of benefits, the effect is ongoing. Zilebesiran leads to reduced medication use and causes less variability in blood pressure response. Nevertheless, interfering RNA acts slowly, meaning that zilebesiran would not be suitable for people presenting with a hypertensive crisis. The fact that it blocks the renin-angiotensin system [RAS] for a very long period of time also poses the question of how to reverse its hypotensive effects,” said Dr. Azizi.
 

Unanswered questions

The lasting RAS antagonist and blood pressure–lowering effects pose a potential safety problem in circumstances involving patients in a state of hypovolemia and hypotension who require rapid blood pressure–raising interventions to prevent morbidity and mortality.

In recent studies, Estrellita Uijl et al. have thus examined strategies to counteract the blood pressure–lowering effect of siRNA in spontaneously hypertensive rats.

Fludrocortisone and a high-salt diet were both successful in gradually increasing blood pressure, which returned to its baseline levels on days 5 and 7, respectively. Yet this rate of response would be wholly inadequate in an urgent clinical situation.

However, midodrine could not reduce blood pressure to normal levels, whether administered subcutaneously or orally.

A rapid and short-lasting increase in blood pressure was observed with bolus doses of vasopressors, but clinically, these would need to be administered intravenously to achieve a lasting effect. Such administration would require hospitalization, close monitoring, and the use of human resources and additional health care provisions.

Encouragingly, the laboratory that created this molecule, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, has come up with an antidote: Reversir. It is a GalNAc-conjugated, single-stranded, high-affinity oligonucleotide complementary to the zilebesiran strand that achieves effective reversal of siRNA activity in 24 hours.

In the future, after the phase 2 trials have been completed, whether or not zilebesiran reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality remains to be seen. But as for Dr. Azizi, the director of HEGP’s blood pressure clinic in Paris, he has no doubt that “this approach is about to shake up how we treat patients in the cardiovascular field.”
 

On the horizon

Zilebesiran is being studied in phase 2 trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension not taking antihypertensive drugs (KARDIA-1: 375 patients; double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-arm trial; zilebesiran at 150, 300, and 600 mg twice per year and 300 mg once every 3 months) and in patients whose blood pressure is not controlled (KARDIA-2: 800 patients; initial open-label start-up period of 4 weeks with indapamide/amlodipine/olmesartan, followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled study over 6 months, then an open-label extension study for up to 12 additional months; zilebesiran at 600 mg on the first day of the initial double-blind period, then every 6 months during the open-label extension period).

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.